(NaturalNews) Fallout from the publication of the names and addresses of some New York handgun permit holders by a local newspaper continues to grow, as shock has turned to outrage amid calls for legal action against the paper’s editors.

As we reported earlier, The Journal News made the incredibly stupid decision to publish the names of handgun-permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties in New York State.

The paper, which obtained permit-holder information through a Freedom of Information Act request, immediately began figuratively drawing fire from readers and other citizens concerned about the blatant violation of a permit holder’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy – angst which has only exploded since (As an aside, those of you who support gun registration need to consider the distinct possibility that you could be just a FOIA request away from being outed as a gun owner to potential criminals and burglars).

Growing anger

AMI Global Security, which published an article condemning the “massive privacy breach” that is “meant to intimidate the lawful” and “abrogate the Bill of Rights,” gathered just a few of the initial comments:

It is as if they put out an ad to jewel thieves listing the names and addresses of where to find diamonds and cash.

Now everyone knows where the LEGAL GUNS are kept, a valuable piece of information for criminals. Why don’t you do something helpful, like trying to find out where the ILLEGAL GUNS are kept? That would be helpful to the non-criminal population.

If the homeowner is killed or injured, will LOHUD be charged as an accomplice to the crime?

This is CRAZY!! Why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this? This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? Should I hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun?

The gun owner has an added responsibility to take all measures that their firearms do not fall into the hands of such miscreants. Beside the natural precautions, they cannot permit themselves to fall hostage in trade for access to their firearms locks.

The paper published the names and addresses of legal handgun permit holders in the form of an interactive Web-based map; when you click on a red dot signifying a permit holder, a window box pops up providing the holder’s name and address.

It’s not the first time The Journal News has done something this callous and stupid regarding gun ownership; in 2006 the paper pulled a similar stunt, but only published permit holder’s names and municipalities, not their specific addresses.

“This is what I see,” Scott F. Williams, 41, of Haddon Heights, N.J., near Philadelphia, who served in the Marines as a rifleman, told the paper. “It’s all in the context of the shootings in Newtown … it gets us all talking about gun control. That people are at a heightened concern makes sense to me. I am a gun owner and a pro-Second-Amendment (person). I try to be rational.”

But, continuing, he described the paper’s insane decision to publish names and addresses “highly Orwellian” and simply “mind-boggling.”

“It’s as if gun owners are sex offenders (and) to own a handgun risks exposure as if one is a sex offender. It’s, in my mind, crazy,” he said, according to the paper.

Is publication of names and addresses even legal?

The map and accompanying short story were published under the headline: “The Gun-Owner Next Door: What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood.” In trying to justify their horrendous decision, the paper’s editors explained it stemmed from the recent massacre of 20 Kindergarten children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in nearby Newtown, Conn., in mid-December, and – supposedly – the concern expressed by some area residents about which of their neighbors might have guns (as if it that private information is any of their business).

In our initial coverage of this story we advocated for the affected permit holders to pursue some sort of legal action against this paper for what appears to be a blatant violation of their constitutional right to privacy.

The paper is defending its actions by noting that the information they published was legally obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request. But obtaining information and publishing said information are two separate issues and should be addressed as such.

In that vein, we note that there is nothing in any report regarding this story that says permit holders previously agreed to allow the publication of their names and addresses as part of the process of applying for and obtaining said permit. So we are in the process of attempting to find out; we await answers from Rockland and Westchester counties.

If gun permit holders in these counties are consenting, as part of the application process, to allowing publication of their names and addresses, we’re betting most of them don’t know that – but should.

Politics, Legislation and Economy News

from the most-transparent-administration-in-history! dept

A couple of months ago, Julian Sanchez wrote about the ridiculous situation in which he filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to reveal the latest semi-annual report from the Justice Department concerning how it was implementing the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. As we’ve been discussing, for a while, how the FISA Amendments Act broadly expanded the ability of federal law enforcement, in particular the NSA, to spy on everyone. While there is some language that suggests it’s only supposed to be used on foreigners, it’s been revealed that there is a secret interpretation of the bill, that likely allows them to use a loophole (plus the secret interpretation) to collect and review tons of data on Americans. The FAA is up for renewal, and it’s likely that Congress will rush through a five year extension — despite overwhelming evidence that many in Congress don’t know how the NSA is interpreting the bill (and even making statements that directly contradict the evidence of how the bill is being used).

The law does require the “semi-annual” report mentioned above, and thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU, the courts have said that the government is required to release redacted versions of those documents. Which is why it was crazy when Sanchez initially filed his FOIA request to see the most recent versions, arguing (quite reasonably) that such documents were inherently important in the debate over the FAA’s renewal, that the DOJ initially told him that it had to deny his request because it could “neither confirm nor deny the existence of records in these files responsive to your request.” That was obviously bullshit. Once again: the report is required by law, and the courts have already said that the content is subject to FOIA requests. Thankfully, after Sanchez went public with the ridiculousness of the situation, the DOJ quickly admitted the original response was a mistake, and promised they’d get right on finding the documents.

The report, which is designated “UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” (U//FOUO), originally published on May 17, 2012, cites a suicide bombing in Somalia in early April 2012 which targeted a theater as an indicator that the United States could experience similar attacks.

Note that U//FOUO means that some information “may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act” and is “to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need to know without prior approval of an authorized DHS official.”

Thankfully, the document was leaked through Public Intelligence and can be read here. Once again I must commend Public Intelligence for their admirable and invaluable work in bringing these types of documents to light.

The report cites an alleged “violent extremist communication advocating attacks on US theaters” which supposedly indicates “terrorists’ continued interest in attacking such venues.”

Be sure to watch the below video report on manufactured terrorism courtesy of the FBI:

That being said, the report does admit that they “have no specific or credible information indicating that terrorists plan to attack theaters in the United States.”

Yet they still manage to claim that “terrorists may seek to emulate overseas attacks on theaters here in the United States because they have the potential to inflict mass casualties and cause local economic damage.”

Unfortunately it has become quite routine for the government to claim that terrorists may attack certain targets based on absolutely no credible or specific information whatsoever.

For those who have a memory greater than that of a goldfish, it becomes clear that all of these claims are unfounded and thankfully fail to materialize. We saw this with Hillary Clinton’s nonsensical fear mongering on the 10th anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 even when she admitted that there was no specific or credible threat.

How they continue to spew this rhetoric – which apparently continues to be lapped up by some – is beyond me. They continue to delegitimize themselves and yet people continue to take it seriously for some strange reason which I can’t quite grasp.

The basis for this report is an incident on April 4, 2012 when a female suicide bomber, allegedly affiliated with the designated terrorist organization al-Shabaab, attacked the National Theater in Mogadishu, Somalia.

The speech featured the Prime Minister of Somalia and multiple Somali cabinet members were also in attendance. The attacker managed to blend in with the rest of the audience and her attack targeted the numerous individuals in attendance who some might regard as “high-value targets.”

Another piece of information which they use to support their claims came just three days later on April 7 when an individual allegedly linked to al Qaeda called for terrorists to emulate the Moscow theater hostage attack in 2002.

The 2002 incident involved Chechen terrorists who took control of the Dubrovka Theater, holding more than 800 individuals hostage for more than three days, at which point Russian security forces gassed the theater.

The “violent extremist” alleged linked to al Qaeda – who goes unnamed in the report – called for people to seize crowded facilities like movie theaters in the United States, take hostages, and use them as a means to demand the release of other violent extremists.

Of course, most astute readers will realize that similar statements are made by alleged al Qaeda operatives on a regular basis, yet they never seem to come to fruition unless it is under the tutelage of the FBI.

“These recent instances demonstrate that mass gatherings such as those associated with theaters likely remain attractive terrorist targets,” the report concludes. “We encourage facility owners and operators, security personnel, and first responders to remain vigilant and report suspicious activities and behaviors that may indicate a potential attack.”

The glaring problem here, which most of my readers have likely already picked up on, is that the incident in Somalia targeted a high-profile event with major officials. Here in the U.S. such events now have incredibly tight security already, which makes such attempted terrorist attacks unlikely at best.

The behaviors which the report classifies as “Potential Suspicious Activity Indicators” on top of the massive list of supposedly suspicious behaviors already outlined in various homeland security documents include:

– Persons in crowded areas wearing clothing that is unusually bulky or atypical for the season, possibly to conceal suicide explosives or weapons.

– Packages—possibly containing explosives—left unattended in open areas or hidden in trash receptacles, lockers, or similar containers.

– Suspicious or illegally parked vehicles near a theater or where crowds gather prior to or following performances and events.

Thankfully these aren’t nearly as nonsensical and insane as some of the previously reported behaviors which are supposedly suspicious.

However, I do not think it is at all reasonable for the DHS to continue to create fear where none should exist, especially when they readily admit that such fear mongering is based on “no specific or credible information.”

It is just yet another attempt to create a climate of fear, paranoia and hostility among the American people where there really need not be any. Hopefully people will be able to see through these attempts as they never seem to relent in their frequency and ludicrousness.

Friends and Sponsors

The Animal Rescue Site

The Hunger Site – Your click helps to feed the hungry

Wheatgrass Kits.com

Discount School Supply

Dog Houses . com

Chicken Coop Source . com

Compost Bins . com

FAIR USE NOTICE

Due to the social nature of this site, it may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit, to those who have expressed a prior interest in participating in this community for educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Any materials (ie. graphics, articles , commentary) that are original to this blog are copyrighted and signed by it's creator. Said original material may be shared with attribution. Please respect the work that goes into these items and give the creator his/her credit. Just as we share articles , graphics and photos always giving credit to their creators when available. Credit and a link back to the original source is required.

If you have an issue with anything posted here or would prefer we not use it . Please contact me. Any items that are requested to be removed by the copyright owner it will be removed immediately. No threats needed or lawsuit required. If there is a problem and you do not wish your work to be showcased then we will happily find an alternative from the many sources readily available from creators who would find it amenable to having their work presented to the subscribers of this feed.